Re: [PATCH 16/31] nds32: VDSO support

[Deepa Dinamani]

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/nds32/include/asm/vdso_datapage.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
>
>> +#ifndef __ASM_VDSO_DATAPAGE_H
>> +#define __ASM_VDSO_DATAPAGE_H
>> +
>> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
>> +
>> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>> +
>> +struct vdso_data {
>> +       bool cycle_count_down;  /* timer cyclye counter is decrease with time */
>> +       u32 cycle_count_offset; /* offset of timer cycle counter register */
>> +       u32 seq_count;          /* sequence count - odd during updates */
>> +       u32 xtime_coarse_sec;   /* coarse time */
>> +       u32 xtime_coarse_nsec;
>> +
>> +       u32 wtm_clock_sec;      /* wall to monotonic offset */
>> +       u32 wtm_clock_nsec;
>> +       u32 xtime_clock_sec;    /* CLOCK_REALTIME - seconds */
>> +       u32 cs_mult;            /* clocksource multiplier */
>> +       u32 cs_shift;           /* Cycle to nanosecond divisor (power of two) */
>> +
>> +       u64 cs_cycle_last;      /* last cycle value */
>> +       u64 cs_mask;            /* clocksource mask */
>> +
>> +       u64 xtime_clock_nsec;   /* CLOCK_REALTIME sub-ns base */
>> +       u32 tz_minuteswest;     /* timezone info for gettimeofday(2) */
>> +       u32 tz_dsttime;
>> +};
>
> I need some insight from Deepa and Palmer here: to prepare for 64-bit
> time_t in the
> future, would it make sense to define the vdso to use 64-bit seconds numbers
> consistently, and provide vdso symbols that return 64-bit times, having the
> glibc convert that to normal timespec values, or should we leave it for now?

Other architectures also have a similar way of defining these as u32
(eg: x86) I think for performance reasons on 32 bit systems.
u32 still works until 2106 as the timekeeping structures are s64. I
was planning to leave it that way for x86.
If this architecture can live with u64, then it will be better to use it here.

> For the normal syscalls I think we are better off keeping things consistent
> between architectures, but the vdso is architecture specific by definition, so
> we may as well use 64-bit times there now (same for risc-v, which still
> has time to modify this before the 4.15 release and glibc merge).

But, I don't think this vdso can return 64 bit times without syscalls
for the architecture also supporting that. The problem is that all
fallback paths depend on syscalls directly.
Also I couldn't find any arch specific handling of vdso interfaces in
glibc. I think they expect the vdso wrappers in the kernel to handle
this part.

-Deepa